Howdy all,

This question (amoung many) has been bouncing around in my brain for awhile now, and I have done a fairly decent amount of reading about the subject and have still not found an answer that makes enough sense to me to 'let it go'.........so, because I reagrd the opinion of the membership here so highly, I thought I'd throw it on the table here in the 'History' Forum and beg your indulgence to possibly paint some sense on this subject (and hopefully many others......)

Here's the first question;

I was recently watching a very good program on German armour deployment during WW II and it was said in the TV program that approx. 12 - 14, 000 (thousand)halftrack chassis' were manufactured during the war years.
Now, at the same time I think the total number of Tiger tanks was somewhere around 15 - 1600 (hundred).
Combining this informational program with another program that stated that the Tiger tank was considered an extremely desirable offensive vehicle by almost all field personnel..........WHY, o' why did the German's feel it was a better investment of manufacturing time/reichsmarc's to build vehicle's like halftracks instead of Tigers???

Now, just for the record, I'm playing a bit of the 'Devils' Advocate' here to generate some discussion on the matter.

But one has got to think, if the German war machine had decided to build Tigers (or Panther's, or...etc.etc) instead of a lot of other vehicles.......would the war have taken a very different turn???????

Thanks to all for taking the time to read and respond.

Tread.

Interesting question Tread As far as making more Tigers or panthers I doubt if it would have made a serious outcome on the war At most,IMO,the war may have gone on a bit longer

As far as more halftracks being produced,my guess is that they are cheaper and faster to produce At the begining of the war they were pretty much PC's or artillery tractors As the war progressed they were used for just about anything they could think of SP anti-tank guns,AA vehicles,rocket launchers etc etc

All the above is just my humble opinion

Good thread, and one which will solicit many replies...
Well, here's my two pence worth..
Did the program actualy break the no. of halftrack chassis down to specific numbers. There where many different types of halftrack in the German Army, Famo's, Demag, 251's , Opel maultier etc, etc... The Halftrack was an intregral part of the Armoured Division as it was needed to bring the infantrie up with the Armoured attack. The enormous amount of halftracks was not an indulgence, but a neccessity, especialy on the east front where anything without tracks would grind to a halt in the mud or snow.

The question of which should have been produced, Tiger or halftracks, brings us to another theory, should have Germany concentrated on building large numbers of reliable, smaller, cheaper tanks (such as the Pzr III and IV, which are compareble with the Sherman..) instead of ever bigger, unreliable monsters which were sapping it's resources.

Did the Germans produce the halftracks in large no.'s till the end of te war or did they divert production to tanks later on, seeing that the halftracks lost a lot of their use in the defensive war of late 44, early 45 when the Germans started producing Tankdestroyers in large no.'s.

What if the Germans had been ABLE to built the large no. of Tigers they would have needed to swing the war, would the end have been different? Yes, and probably frightenly so. The Germans were close to creating the Abomb, were close to creating an intercontinental missile, had just put the first Jetfighter operational in the air and the Allied coalition was shakey to say the least...
Hitlers gamble in the bulge did not pay off, but it could have easily been so much different. Hindsight shows that to be the moment were Hitler most likely lost the war on the Western Front, rendering the industrial areas of Ruhr (steel production and manufacture) and Alsace (coal and iron ore) effectivly without defence, and thus losing Germany's ability to produce their amaments needed on both West and East fronts
If the war would have lasted another 6 months, things might have been very different..

I'll lleave it here as there will be more to add their 2 pennies or cents to this disscusion

Cheers
Henk

Howdy fellas,

Thx for the replies so far.

To answer your question Henk, I was talking about the 250 series halftracks. I was actually amazed at the qouted number of units built in the TV show. I really don't believe that they were referring to any other versions of track.

Anyway, the 'essence' of my question is; Did the German's make a conscience, and potentially erroneous decision to build the wrong piece's of hardware?

To maybe shed a bit more light on my thinking on the subject (or at least the question), I watched another excellent program on the Tiger tank just recently, where they were most fortunate enough to be able to interview a handful of real WW II German tank commander's about the face-off with Allied armour and it's Pro's and Con's.
Every single German Tiger/Panther T.C. interviewed said the very same thing (and it was obvious that the interviews had been filmed at different times and different places).
And that is, in almost every tank vs. tank confrontation that the German's engaged in, they were never one-on-one. It was almost always one against at least 8 to 10 Allied tanks!

EDIT: Now.....take a second, and really think about this confrontation. To maybe put this in more 'modern' terms, imagine a single M1A1 Abrams going up against almost a dozen, equally equipped Russian T-whatever's during the Cold War.........not a comfortable seat to be sure.

{There's an active modeling Campaign going on right now that is aptly named "10 of ours is......").

Additionally, the U.S. and British tank commanders who were interviewed concurred that their tanks were essentially impotent against the larger and more powerful Tigers/Panthers, and, that they had to find a different way to kill them, which was gettin into a position where they could fire on the enemy tanks hind quarters.......

I guess the question boils down to this.......shouldn't the German's, knowing that either the Tiger or the Panther tank was a superior war tool of the time, invest their focus on building more of something that had proven it's worth already?

Tread.

If the Germans had been able to build more Tigers/Panthers I believe they would have done so. However, despite the testimony of those who fought in them, the Tiger and Panther where fraught with faults with eventualy rendered them a hindrance rather than a war winning tool. The Tiger, and to a lesser extent the Panther were designed for tankbattles in open country, such as the Russian steppe or indeed the African desert. The Tiger was also designed as a consolidating tank, not an attacking wapen. As sson as the war moved to the European main land ( First Italy, then France) and when the Germans had to retreat from Russia, The Tiger was shown up for what it really was, a mobile pillbox..




History repeating itself again....
In 1940 the Germans invaded France. The Germans had the Panzer II with a 20 mm cannon, the French had the Char with a 75mm cannon. Odds in favour of the French, apart from the fact that the Char had to be turned to lay the main gun, making it slow and cumbersome, and the Germans using the speed and agility of the Pzr II to outflank and swamp the Char on the weak side. Sound familiar?

I don't think think that more Tigers would have helped the Germans, if only because they did not have the fuel to keep them going. The Allies just kept throwing Shermans at them. For every Tiger at least 2 Pzr IV H or J's could have been build, which would not have broken down because the gearbox was designed for the 28 - 30 ton of the Pzr IV, not the 60+ tons of the Tiger et al.

Time are a breath of air, and a glass of beer


Henk

Hi, I think that quite a bit of the German military problems, not only with how the day-to-day operations of the various services were run, but also with their equipment(s), supplies and types of vehicles, etc. stemmed a lot from basically how the Third Reich operated from the very get-go.

If there was one thing Hitler was a master at it was being able to keep ALL the various governmental organizations under him arguing and fighting amoung themselves all thorughout the life of the Third Reich.

I've heard more than one author comment on the fact that at any one time there were multiple studies, experiments, and technical advancements being tried without the knowledge of the other governmental branches that should have been involved in them. Each one carrying out exactly with same thing with usually the same results, in the end, for either good or bad.

And Hitler, being the only one who really knew what was going on, was also a person easily influenced by the people around him who just happened to be on his 'good side' and take advantage of him in order to push their schemes for the newest tank, plane or other such idea.

Armor is a good example of this. What other country, who would have been in the miltary situation that Germany was in from 1943 onward would have taken the time to develop the Elephant, the Hunting Tiger, or even the 180-ton Maus. Or a whole line of other odd-ball, basically worthless machinery whose only basic goal, in the end, was to tie up vast amounts of vital raw materials, and workers, who were both in short supply to begin with.

In the end, this turned out to be good thing for the world's civilzation at that time. And dare I say a wonderful thing for all of us modelers in general who have been conquered by the 'dark side' of this hobby. Ha, ha!

Anyway, this is my one cent's worth here.

Take care, Sgirty

Howdy fellas,

again, your comments are most appreciated.

But, breaking down the aurgument to it's most 'common denominator'.
Given the idea of being in an almost Twilight Zone-like situation, and being put in an arena and having the choice of being seated in either a Tiger, Panther, or Konig Tiger tank opposite a Sherman, Cromwell, Lee, or Churchill tank and the duel is 'to the death'.........which seat would you choose?

Tread.

I'm not sure that a production line of halftracks could be changed to produce any kind of tank.
Tanks are made from steel, ussually produced in train factories while halftracks might be of aluminum which means they would be made in car and truck factories.
so maybe the question should be why to build 15000 halftrack when you can build more attack planes and fighters to retain aerial supremecey (something the germans failed to do in the later stages of the war, but probably because of fuel shortage) and destroy enemy tanks from the air which yielded outstanding results when they had air supremacy on the east front.

sure I could be wrong. anyone has insight into the materials used in halftrack construction?

another possible answer would be that they didnt need these tanks but they needed ways to mobile thier infantry during blitzkrieg attack under the protection of something tougher than a truck.
this can only be confirmed if you studied the strategical goals of WWII germany which I didnt, so again I could be wrong.

Following on from sgirty's comments,Hitler also had an almost childlike faith in new wonder weapons.He believed they could be the decisive factor in winning the war.For example part of the reason that Operation Citadel was delayed at Kursk was Hitlers desire for the Panther tanks to be used.In the end the Panthers were beset by mechanical problems and made no such decisive impact.Infact one attack went straight into a minefield from its start lines.
As for the "what if" frankly an IS-3.
Cheers October

As just a follow-up question, and to diversify a bit.......

Why do you think the German's had such recurring problems with mechanical issues when normally german engineering is considered almost 'bar-setting'?........or is that just my impression?

One would think that simply getting something to run right wouldn't be that hard......

Tread.

I think that the tanks & halftracks were built by different companies, so I'm not sure that they "competed" with each other for production space.


Sorry, the halftracks were steel also, although you're right, they didn't need to be made in specialist factories like the tanks. It seems that certain manufacturers were given or specialised in certain vehicles (eg Henschel for Tigers, Vomag for PIV series & Jagdpanzers, Hanomag for halftracks etc). The point is made elsewhere in this thread that even if the German had made more Tigers etc they would still have been too short of petrol to run them. This is so. They had plenty of jets but not enough fuel or experienced pilots to fly them! They would have run out even faster if they had more Tigers, after all it used 21/2 gallons per mile!
To some extent strategy was dictated by the need for raw materials, eg oil from Hungary, steel from Sweden, both of which spawned campaigns, Norway in 1940 to safeguard steel supplies from Sweden & the Autumn Mist attack in 1945 around Lake Balaton to seize back Hitlers last remaining oil supplies.
It is true that the lack of tanks made the Germans employ halftracks in situations they weren't really intended for as ersatz tanks, hence the proliferation of different special purpose vehicles (eg Sdkfz251/22). But they would have needed them for their armoured infantry anyway, it was the only way they could stay with the armour, a fact that was proved in Normandy, by the hurried conversion of Canadian Ram tanks & the "defrocked Priests".
The biggest mistake was the diversion of resources into blind alleys like the Maus, a vehicle that had it entered service would have been even more of a liabilty. Had they standardised on one good design (the Panther was probably the best choice, since it's 75mm L70 gun could still handle all allied armour, including the heavier Russian types, it's armour piercing ability was actually superior to the L56 88mm on the Tiger), cured it;s faults & just churned them out, this would have been more effective.

How about the Achilles, Firefly, or perhaps the Pershing (although I will concede that the pershing only entered at the end of the war and made no decisive impact) . Before I could make a choice I would like to know the layout of the arena, circular and open or filled with obstacels. Circular and open, I'll probably opt for the Panther. (Didn't see to many Tigers in Berlin) There are horses for courses, and considering that the Gemans did not have the resources for massed Tiger or Panther production, and the fact that both were unsuited for close quarter fighting in the, relatively, convined space of Northeren Europe, I think that the case has to be in favour of cheap, light, manouvrebale mass produced tanks.

Cheers
Henk

Simple really, the tanks may have been well built to begin with, but they needed constant maintenance & skilled mechanics were in short supply. Would you let a 17 year old loose on something as complicated as a Tiger? The Germans did, they had no choice. Incidentally, people generally weren't as mechanically minded in those days, after all comparatively few families owned a car.
Nor is this confined to WW2. I have a mate who was a sergeant in the REME, who served in a LAD in Germany for many years, through the Chieftain years of British armour. He told me that when the regiment he was attached to went on exercise, he spent the first 36 hours working flat out changing engine packs. After that they just put their feet up because they would have run out of spares, so the regimental tank strength just declined steadily until the end of the exercise! Few people ralise how "fragile" 45 ton tanks actually are.

Along similar lines the ability to recover and repair tanks from the battlefield can help tip the balance in keeping up a forces combat strenght.Again for example at Kursk, the Russians were in a better position to recover,repair and return to the battle the next day their T-34's than the Germans could their overly complicated machines.
A factor which further tipped the odds in the Russians favour.
October

The Russians also evaluated the German armour they 'acquired' and put out the directive to field units that " any Panzer III or IV should be used and if a breakdown occurs, be repaired if possible. The Panther and Tiger should be used untill they break down or run out of ammunition and than be abandoned, as they are not worth the trouble and expense of repair".

Henk

Yes sir very true. The possession of the battlefield after a scrap is crucial to recovering your gear. If you have to retreat you lose all the equipment you might have been able to repair & use the next day. If you're advancing you gain the enemy's stuff as well as ground.
Incidentally the original Waffen Amt reply to the appearance of the T34 was too demand a straight copy. This was dismissed out of hand, because the Germans didn't want to appear to be copying something produced by "untermensch"! So it's only fit & right that they lost with that attitude!

Great thread.... I wish I was well versed in this subject so that I could contribute.

Jim

I think we need to remember that the guy in charge was a nut, he had a thing about size take a look a their architecture everything was huge and grandoise now what logical thinking person would plan a offensive that had to rely on captured enemy fuel supplies and equip those forces with Tiger11's what 5 mile to the gallon, apparently Piper went balistic he wanted Mark4's fast and reliable.
Tread, I watched a show about the Tiger they asked veterans from both sides which tank they would rather be in during a shoot out both sides opted for the Tiger.

Off course, seldom was there a shoot-out. More likely than not, terrain, element of surprise and manouverability came to play, in which case, the vastly superior manouverability of the sherman proved to be winning.

Add to that that a sherman was easier to patch up, more reliable and the fact that there simply were a lot more shermans than panthers and tigers.

Other interesting musing though: what if the churchill would have been the allied standard armoured vehicle ? What would have happened then ?

Well no spectacular advances for a start, not with a top speed of 15mph anyway! The Churchill was designed as an Infantry tank, so it didn't need to be fast, heavy armour was more important. The Mk1 had a 2pdr in the turret & a howitzer in the hull, this reflected its intended use. Later it was upgunned. But its role remained infantry support - that's why it was issued to Army Tank Brigades, not armoured divisions.
As regards the German tanks, it's significant that the German Bundeswehr tank owes more to the post war British Centurion designs than to the WW2 German ones (Christie style suspension, British 105mm gun etc).

Tread, as to your question about the Germans and mechanical reliability here is my two cents worth. The Germans made great machines, but they seemed to be obsessed with gimmicks and special features. Where an American designer would have one or two parts, a German might have half a dozen. Their ideas were great, but they were just too complicated.

Back to your original question here is a few more pennies from me. The Germans made great weapons, they just seemed to have a hard time setting priorities. They made one of the most advanced fighters of the war, the ME 262, then wanted to make a bomber out of it. This at a time when they didn't even have enough fuel to train their pilots. They made some of the most formidable tanks in the word, Tiger, King Tiger, Panther, but couldn't manage to keep them running. In one book on the Cobra operation I've read it was stated that over 40% of the Panthers in Normandy were not operational. With all the half tracks they made they were still relying on horse drawn supply wagons.

The one thing the Americans seemed to grasp was that they could do well enough if they made a LOT of something that was only average. There were a lot better tanks out there than the Sherman, but if you have enough of them you could still win. In all areas of production Americans would standardize on a few good designs, then build the heck out of them. In ships look at the Cleavland class light cruiser, Fletcher class destroyer, or Gato class fleet sub. There may have been better designs out there, but those are ships that helped win the war by sheer numbers.

PS:, I've finally got a decent vehicle reliable enough to drive up to Denver. Ok, my wife thinks it's hers but I paid for it so I'm sure I can have it one weekend. If you care to ever get together, maybe visit a LHS or two up there, let me know.

IMHO the Tiger E was a knee-jerk reaction to the appearance of the T34 in 1941. It wasn't shaped very well ballistically & was unnecessarily bulky & complicated (though apparently is quite easy to drive for such a large vehicle).
The Panther in many ways is a better tank. It was as fast or faster than a Sherman (something not always mentioned), & had a superior cross country ability (wide tracks).
The Germans had no hope of rivalling American & Russian production output (42000+ Shermans). They opted to go for quality over numbers. In this they allowed themselves to be dazzled by the initial impact of the introduction of the Tiger. In the hands of men like Wittman & Barkmann, Panthers & Tigers could be almost mythical in their effect. But the fact remains that however many Shermans & T34s they destroyed, there would always be more & more.

This may be of interest regards the Tiger I...

Introduction from Report On Pz Kw VI (Tiger) Model E

by Military College of Science, School of Tank Technology, Chobham Lane Chertsey, January 1944


The Pz. Kw. VI was introduced into service by the enemy in the Autumn or Winter of 1942, and appeared in North Africa in January 1943 and later in Sicily and on the Russian front.

The vehicle which has been examined is a Pz. Kw. VI (E) or Sd. Kfz. 182 and is also known as the "TIGER". This model to have been developed by Henschel u Soehne G.m.b.H.

The "TIGER" is of course outstanding by reason of its being the heaviest A.F.V. in general service, scaling approximately 56 tons in battle order. Its main armament is an 8.8 cm. gun, whilst its heaviest armour (on the frontvertical plate) is 102 mm. Another feature of outstanding tactical interest is its deep wading facilities, and limited under water performance, to a depth of approximately 15 ft.

Its size and weight, however, impose certain tactical disadvantages, the cost outstanding being the restriction on transportation due to its width, and its limited radius of action, due to heavy fuel consumption, (stated by the enemy as 2.75 gallons per mile on normal cross-country running).

The workmanship appears to be of a high order, and the design has been executed freely from the drawing board, in general unhampered by the utilisation of existing components. There are exceptions however and certain points of detail design appear unnecessarily elaborate and costly to manufacture.

An interesting development in German A.F.V. construction is the introduction of plate interlocking in addition to the normal stepped jointing. This method has no doubt been made necessary by the use of thicker armour.

The steering unit is in principle similar to the "Merritt-Brown" with the further refinement of a twin radius of turn in each gear. This adoption of a full' regenerative steering system is a distinct departure from the simple clutch/brake system hitherto employed on German tanks. The weight of the TIGER no doubt enforced a radical change in the steering design and the adoption of this system is therefore of interest. The gearbox has much in common with other Maybach pre-selective units, and probably the outstanding merit of this design is the provision of a large number of forward ratios (in this case eight) in a relatively compact main casing. This use of a fully automatic change speed operation is in distinct contrast with current Allied practice.

The transmission and steering units are extremely complicated and undoubtedly costly in man/hours to produce. The resultant light control of such a heavy vehicle may be some justification, since those who have driven the tank comment favourably on this feature.

As yet there is no indication that the Germans favour a compression ignition engine and the Pz. Kw. VI is powered by a V-12 Maybach petrol engine. This engine which has undoubtedly been expressly designed for a heavy tank, is a logical development of the Maybach V-12 type 120 TRM used in the Pz. Kw. III and Pz. Kw. IV and is similar in general design. As this engine represents the very latest German practice it merits close study, and it must be conceded that the design has achieved its purpose in a great measure. It is compact, light and very accessible.

Funny how Wittmann and Barkmann always crop up but no-one ever mentions Germanys top tank ace...

Would you be talking about Bruno Kahl? If I remember correctly, I think his chariot of choice was the Panther wasn't it?

Tread.